Unified Computing SystemApplication · Cisco

CVE-2015-4279

HIGH · 7.2 CVSS v2.0 Published 2015-07-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
The Manager component in Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) 2.2(3b) on B Blade Server devices allows local users to gain privileges for executing arbitrary CLI commands by leveraging access to the subordinate fabric interconnect, aka Bug ID CSCut32778.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · moderate confidence

This is a local privilege escalation vulnerability in Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) Manager. Local users with access to the subordinate fabric interconnect on B Blade Server devices running UCS version 2.2(3b) can escalate their privileges to execute arbitrary CLI commands, bypassing intended access controls.

MitigationApply the vendor-supplied Cisco patch for this vulnerability or upgrade to a fixed Cisco UCS version. Additionally, strictly limit physical and logical access to the fabric interconnect infrastructure to reduce the attack surface.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
Unified Computing SystemApplication
Affected:= 2.2\(3b\)

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Local
Complexity
Low
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Complete
Integrity
Complete
Availability
Complete

AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Cisco UCS Manager installation
    Log into the system and run 'show version' or check the UCS Manager GUI for the system type. Confirm the product is Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) Manager.
    Affected if The system is not running Cisco UCS Manager, then this CVE does not apply.
  2. Determine UCS Manager version
    Execute 'show version' in UCS Manager CLI or check the About dialog in the UCS Manager GUI. Locate the exact version string displayed.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.2(3b) - no other versions are affected per the advisory.
  3. Verify B Blade Server configuration
    In UCS Manager, navigate to Equipment > Equipment Summary or use 'show fabric-interconnect' command to confirm the server model type. Check if B-Series Blade Servers are present in the inventory.
    Affected if The system does not have B Blade Server devices, the specific attack surface for this vulnerability does not exist.
  4. Confirm subordinate fabric interconnect access
    Check the fabric interconnect status via 'show fabric-interconnect' or via UCS Manager GUI under Equipment > Fabric Interconnects. Note which fabric interconnect is marked as subordinate.
    Affected if Local users have logical or physical access to the subordinate fabric interconnect on B Blade Server systems running the affected version.

A user is affected if their Cisco UCS Manager version is exactly 2.2(3b), they have B Blade Servers deployed, and local users can access the subordinate fabric interconnect.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply the vendor-supplied Cisco patch for this vulnerability or upgrade to a fixed Cisco UCS version. Additionally, strictly limit physical and logical access to the fabric interconnect infrastructure to reduce the attack surface.

Fix this in Unified Computing System Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,840
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,544.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-4279 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-4279 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data